Yesterday, I wrote about doubts international diplomats have about the charges the U.S. is leveling against Iran. The posting yesterday referred to a piece in the Los Angeles Times. Today, The NYTimes mimics the theme. Hey, I’m not complaining–if we can get the mainstream media to not roll over whenever the president makes claims about Iran a la the lies around Iraq, maybe we can avoid another fiasco.

The piece today relates to a raid that got much attention and was used by the Administration to fuel more saber-rattling against Iran:

A raid on a Shiite weapons cache in the southern city of Hilla one week ago is providing what American officials call the best evidence yet that the deadliest roadside bombs in Iraq are manufactured in Iran, but critics contend that the forensic case remains circumstantial and inferential.

The new evidence includes infrared sensors, electronic triggering devices and information about plastic explosives used in bombs that the Americans say lead back to Iran. The explosive material, triggering devices, other components and the method of assembly all produce weapons with an Iranian signature that has never been found outside Iraq or southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah is believed to have used weapons supplied by Iran, the Americans say.

But critics assert that nearly all the bomb components could have been produced in Iraq or somewhere else in the region. Even if the evidence were to establish that Iran is the source, they add, that does not necessarily mean that the Iranian leadership is responsible.

The rest of the piece is here. This is the old story of the boy who cried wolf: anything the U.S. says now in terms of claims about Iran will be–and should be–viewed skeptically because of this Administration’s fabrications about the Iraq war.

Here’s something I noticed, whether sinister or not: the headline of the print version of the Times
says, “U.S. Says Raid in Iraq Supports Claim on Iran, but Doubt Persists.” But, the web version of the article drops the last three words, removing, at least from the headline, words that would cast more doubt on the claim.